Adding a PhysX Card Make a difference?

[happy]

Hi,
So I have an i3-2120 and a gtx460. I was thinking about adding a dedicated PsychX card to do all the PsychX things. I might be planning to play some PsychX games. So I am planning to get a gts 8400 to be my PscychX card would it drop my fps or give me a boost of at least 10 fps. I also have a 650w corsair would I have to buy a new PSU?

I have:
(x5) HDD IDE & SATA
(x4) Fans
(x1) DVD Drive

[m1dg3t]

IIRC you don't need a dedicated PhysX card as you are running Nvidia, if you want more performance move up the Nvidia ladder

[happy]

Originally Posted by m1dg3t

IIRC you don't need a dedicated PhysX card as you are running Nvidia, if you want more performance move up the Nvidia ladder

Oh I just saw a good deal on the 8400 gts and thought if I bought that for my setup would it improve it with at least a 10fps gain and if I need to upgrade my PSU.

[ZenEffect]

set your current gpu to handle physx, turn on the physx visual indicator in nvidia control panel and play your games. make note of how many say phsyx = gpu, i bet it wont be many. given the amount of games that allow gpu accelerated physx vs the cost of an 8400gs, is it worth the investment?

and... and 8400gs is a horrible horrible horrible card for anything but microsoft word, and general internet usage. the igpu on your cpu is stronger than the 8400gs. also, there is no additional pcie connector for the card. 650w should be fine, but its a waste of time.

[happy]

Originally Posted by ZenEffect

set your current gpu to handle physx, turn on the physx visual indicator in nvidia control panel and play your games. make note of how many say phsyx = gpu, i bet it wont be many. given the amount of games that allow gpu accelerated physx vs the cost of an 8400gs, is it worth the investment?

and... and 8400gs is a horrible horrible horrible card for anything but microsoft word, and general internet usage. the igpu on your cpu is stronger than the 8400gs. also, there is no additional pcie connector for the card. 650w should be fine, but its a waste of time.

So no increase in fps I take. It just takes the load off the GTX 460.

[n-ster]

it would lower fps, if anything

[happy]

Originally Posted by n-ster

it would lower fps, if anything

That's what I heard, but wanted to see if anyone hear actually had a lower fps adding a cheaper GPU.

[Solaris17]

it wouldnt lower FPS at all. however the 8400 isnt even supported. the 8600 is the lowest possible card that will allow GPU accelerated physx.

[ZenEffect]

Originally Posted by happy

That's what I heard, but wanted to see if anyone hear actually had a lower fps adding a cheaper GPU.

thats kind of a mixed question, a gts250 would probably increase it.. an 8400gs however, not so much. it will increase headache and spite though. the point im trying to make though is, check to see if gpu accelerated physx is even working by turning on the physx visual indicator.

[happy]

Originally Posted by ZenEffect

thats kind of a mixed question, a gts250 would probably increase it.. an 8400gs however, not so much. it will increase headache and spite though.

[xxdozer32]

LOL the OP couldve done some research as this question was already answered on one of the stickys

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=135891

[JrRacinFan]

Your 460 would handle the overhead of PhysX just fine. Also a gt220 or gt240 make the best standalone Physx card.

[n-ster]

Originally Posted by Solaris17

it wouldnt lower FPS at all. however the 8400 isnt even supported. the 8600 is the lowest possible card that will allow GPU accelerated physx.

Well if you take a 8600 for example, and it is overloaded with physX, wouldn't the fps be lower because the GTX 460 would have handled it easily and not be bottlenecked?

In general, with very light PhysX, there would be a small fps increase due to the off-load (not that the GTX 460 couldn't handle light PhysX anyways), but the cost of the card and the extra power it uses and the noise it makes would definitively make the purchase worthless.

[happy]

Originally Posted by JrRacinFan

Your 460 would handle the overhead of PhysX just fine. Also a gt220 or gt240 make the best standalone Physx card.

So if I did possibly get a gt 240 or gt 220, would it equate to at least a 10 fps boost? I know it will increase the visual effects like dirts and all that other stuff, but will it increase to at least 10 fps?

[n-ster]

you might get from 100 to 110 fps but not 50 to 60 fps. Remember PhysX works only for games that support it anyways (not many)

Forget about a standalone PhysX card it is definitively NOT worth it for you

[ZenEffect]

how will it increase particle count when its limited by a game cap? unless the game is specifically coded to detect then utilize gpu accelerated physx (very very few) you wont see any real visual differance.

[Solaris17]

Originally Posted by n-ster

Well if you take a 8600 for example, and it is overloaded with physX, wouldn't the fps be lower because the GTX 460 would have handled it easily and not be bottlenecked?

In general, with very light PhysX, there would be a small fps increase due to the off-load (not that the GTX 460 couldn't handle light PhysX anyways), but the cost of the card and the extra power it uses and the noise it makes would definitively make the purchase worthless.

you would produce less with an underpowered card. the physx card is just doing the calculation. the 460 is still the display adapter. with the added eye candy and the load of physx off its back. their would be little to no difference.

[sneekypeet]

I don't know if it really is the same, but I do know that when I had my 470's in SLI, using either a GTX275 or another GTX470 as a dedicated card, my scores/FPS were worse.

[Solaris17]

Originally Posted by sneekypeet

I don't know if it really is the same, but I do know that when I had my 470's in SLI, using either a GTX275 or another GTX470 as a dedicated card, my scores/FPS were worse.

I was actually about to mention this. When I had my GX2s they exhibited the same behavior. its diffirent with single cards. in this case he would see a gain but not 10FPS and not at all unless he got a better card. in games he would see no change. in synthetics the score would be worse. because the 8600 while a fantastic card just isnt a viable physx option. the 460 would score higher by itself then offloading. the only time low end cards like that helped are like 9600 with an 8600 as a physx card. Alot of people on the forum can tell alot of people in this thread I ran these kinds of tests all the time. Iv pretty much owned almost every nvidia card under the sun.

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by xxdozer32

LOL the OP couldve done some research as this question was already answered on one of the stickys

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=135891

Damn! I made the assumption they already searched the forum stickies

99% of the time 1 card is better than 2, that's why i always buy "flagship" card's More performance, less problem's and better longevity

I have never seen a person with multiple card's NOT experience some type of issue's. Just my $0.02

[JrRacinFan]

Anyone have a Vantage run available on an EVGA GTX275 Co-op? Guys, you remember these cards?

[crazyeyesreaper]

he wont see a gain at all

8400GS barely meet the minimum requirments for Physx

Which NVIDIA GeForce GPUs support PhysX?
The minimum requirement to support GPU-accelerated PhysX is a GeForce 8-series or later GPU with a minimum of 32 cores and a minimum of 256MB dedicated graphics memory. However, each PhysX application has its own GPU and memory recommendations. In general, 512MB of graphics memory is recommended unless you have a GPU that is dedicated to PhysX.

the 8400 series Specs:

32 shaders
64 bit bus

the simple fact is the 8400 gs is so weak even if used for Physx its performance would so terrible as to be worthless

dont bother with dedicated PhysX cards unless your running AMD, and even then you want something like a GTS 450 or better, lulz

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

dont bother with dedicated PhysX cards unless your running AMD, and even then you want something like a GTS 450 or better, lulz

It doesn't even phase me, there are what 10 - 15 game's that use PhysX? Of which i may play 3 or 4. If every game used it then i'd be "worried". I aint gonna clutter up my case and steal more power from my PSU to get "slightly" better GFX in less than a handfull of game's.

I am pleased with my overall performance, and always have been

If you want realism get your buddies together and hit a paintball park, get all the PhysX you need

[crazyeyesreaper]

no shit, point was using a dedicated physx card when you already have an nvidia card is not worth what you get,

but pair say a 450 with a 5850 lets to max out Mafia II, with all the bells and whistles from cloth simulation etc, and i agree for the few games that use it its rather useless, point remains any game using physx right now can be run on a decent Nvidia GPU without the need for a dedicated card, if your on AMD and want physx, grab a cheap 440 / 450 from nvidia and slot it in.

[sneekypeet]

Originally Posted by JrRacinFan

Anyone have a Vantage run available on an EVGA GTX275 Co-op? Guys, you remember these cards?

PM Dark2099, he was the only one I knew who had one.